The issue of theft not disputed and court concluded that theft was completed the moment the vehicle was grabbed from its lawful owner without his consent.

The issue of violence, court held that ordering the victims out of the car amounted to violence.

On the issue of the deadly weapon court held that no aggravated robbery was committed but merely a simple theft as the witnesses had no way to determine whether what they saw was a gun capable of shooting.

On whether the accused participated in the robbery since there was no identification, court relied on the accused’s confession which corresponded with the testimony of the witnesses, placing the accused person at the scene of crime.

On a retracted confession, court held that it must be approached with caution and corroboration is required before it can be relied upon for any safe conviction.

On common intention, court held that the accused was not a mere onlooker but an active participant based on his confession. It is immaterial that the gun was held by another.